When law enforcers operate outside the discipline of law
Criminal law is increasingly becoming a source of state coercion with the expansion of maximum criminal law, rather than a principled commitment to minimalist criminalisation
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The editorial by the Vice-Chancellor of critiques the rising public acceptance of extralegal state actions, such as 'bulldozer justice' and staged encounters ('Operation Langda'). It argues that these practices stem from a systemic failure and public frustration with the formal criminal justice system, highlighting a dangerous shift towards a 'culture of control' and state-sponsored violence.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
The core constitutional issue here is the erosion of Rule of Law and Due Process. The Indian Constitution, under , guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Extrajudicial killings or punitive demolitions directly violate this fundamental right, substituting legal procedure with executive fiat. The author notes that public endorsement of such actions indicates a breakdown in trust towards established legal institutions. When the state bypasses the judiciary—the institution tasked with determining guilt and assigning punishment—it undermines the . This trend reflects a shift from a minimalist criminalisation approach to a coercive 'penal state', where the state uses punishment to manage social anxieties rather than addressing root causes through the formal justice system.
Governance
The article highlights severe governance failures within the criminal justice system, specifically citing pendency, delay, and a 'justice gap'. Despite a seemingly low crime rate of 445 per 1,00,000, millions lack effective access to courts, a situation described by Marc Galanter as favoring 'repeat players' (the 'Haves'). This systemic failure creates a vacuum that state actors attempt to fill with performative, extralegal 'shortcuts' like bulldozer justice. Furthermore, the author points to a 'compassion deficit', where pre-trial processes like arrest and custody are used as punishment due to an ecosystem of distrust. To reform this, governance must pivot towards procedural justice—ensuring that legal institutions are perceived as fair and legitimate, which requires reducing pendency, promoting non-custodial options, and ensuring court orders actually mitigate harm.
Ethics
From an ethical standpoint, the normalization of state violence raises profound questions about Public Service Ethics and the morality of governance. The endorsement of 'bulldozer justice' represents a utilitarian justification of extralegal means for perceived short-term security, abandoning deontological principles that insist on fair processes regardless of outcomes. This reflects David Garland’s 'culture of control', where public fear drives punitive policies. The ethical failure extends to the idea of justice itself; as Nils Christie argued, modern justice systems often steal conflicts from victims and communities, leaving them unheard while professionals manage the process. True ethical governance demands a commitment to fairness, non-maleficence, and ensuring that state power is exercised with compassion rather than coercion, maintaining the moral legitimacy of the state.